CCHQ didn't get a big media hit from its 'green heroes and zeroes' list (pdf) but The Sun did do as Peter Ainsworth must have hoped and covered the fact that page three green beauty Keeley Hazell made the list of heroes. Keeley Hazell became the public face of a Sun website that is dedicated to environmental issues. Painted in green her saucy advice to Sun readers included:
"Turning off lights can be a big turn-on."
"Cycling will tone you up, giving you a fantastic physique and making you irresistible to the opposite sex."
"I insist my sexy pics are taken by digital camera, so invest in one. Film processing and developing uses toxic chemicals."
"Using water whacks up your energy bill. A shared dip in the tub will cut a couple’s costs."
The Daily Mail - which describes Ms Hazell as "as a Page 3 girl in downmarket newspapers" (!) - warns that this "latest press stunt is expected to bring renewed criticism that the party is dumbing down its message."
Other heroes on the Tory list are Prince Charles (David Cameron's recent dining partner), Sir David Attenborough (just voted Britain's Greatest Living Icon), Arnold Schwarzenegger (who recently signed a climate change pact with Tony Blair) and politician-turned-moviemaker Al Gore.
More controversial is the list of green zeroes. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair is identified as one of nine groups and individuals "who have continued to ignore threats to the environment." In a different Conservative era Mr O'Leary would have been praised for bringing cheap travel and sun-drenched holidays to millions of lower income families. Few have done as much to dismantle the overpriced European airline market.
The list of zeroes might have been a little more credible if it had also included former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson as one of the climate change deniers. Lord Lawson (along with Bjorn Lomborg) made a strong critique of the Stern report (Stern being one of the party's new heroes) but Central Office clearly wanted to avoid drawing attention to this 'inconvenient truth'. Click here to see an 18 Doughty Street Talk TV clip of Iain Dale talking to Lord Lawson about the "fraudulent" Stern report.
I have yet to read a positive review of the Stern Report from ANY economist. It is just another of the governments dodgy dossiers. When the general public come to realise they are being fooled again they will be asking why the Conservatives were complicit in the lie.
Posted by: Kit | December 30, 2006 at 09:27
Editor, I'm not sure I agree with you using David Cameron to censor wonderful things.
Posted by: dizzy | December 30, 2006 at 10:02
Quite right Dizzy. She looks a bit seasick to me.
Would agree that the Green Zeroes is a can of worms. It would seem we've closed down debate on the issue if we don't allow opposing views anymore.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | December 30, 2006 at 10:19
Thank you Dizzy! :-)
This is a family website so I thought I'd have to censor the original Sun photo just a little!
Posted by: Editor | December 30, 2006 at 10:24
The zeroes sound like splendid people and organisations (with the exception of Douglas Alexander).
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 30, 2006 at 11:27
Just how much longer is the party going to continue its stupid dalliance with 'green' nonsense? We really need to focus on the issues that hit people every day - taxes, unnecessary regulation, street-crime - and stop fretting about supposed 'climate change'. We most definitely won't be able to offer the electorate the deeply longed-for tax-cuts if we fall in behind the greenies with their 'carbon levies' and increased airline passenger duties. Green has become the new God and David Cameron is trying to play the role of Archbishop. Sorry, some of us belong to a wholly different church.
Posted by: Tanuki | December 30, 2006 at 11:54
While it's nice to know the Conservatives and the Sun are keeping the public **WARNING! DODGY PUN ALERT!** abreast on environmental concerns, there is a danger that they could be trivialising what is a very important issue.
The lists also seem a bit random, although I'm not the least bit surprised that CCHQ fashionista Daniel 'Air Miles' Ritterband failed to make the 'zeroes' list despite his regular jaunts across the Atlantic every time his wardrobe needs updating.
Posted by: not Tranny and Susannaargh | December 30, 2006 at 12:09
I went off Lawson for losing control of inflation but at least he is prepared to stand up to the climate change bandwagon.
Why should we take lessons onnthsi subject from a party whose leader had a car follow him on his bike?
Prince Charles. Don't make me laugh. I seem to recall a few years ago he had a Bentley driven out to Czechoslovakia for his use after he flew there.
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 13:22
And another thing. Why is it always the promulgators of change (who are usually politicians) that are least likely to be affected by it? Whether it is climate change, ID cards and data registers, salaries and pensions, council tax, they always have a special reason why it shouldn't affect them. Their motto of course is "Do as I say, not as I do".
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 13:27
Why on earth should we take advice from Lord Lawson on ANYTHING?
He is the man who, as Chancellor, set his face against the excellent analysis given by Alan Walters (a true Thatcherite hero) about the perils of the ERM. By arrogantly insisting that the pound should shadow the mark Lawson became the father of the ERM disaster that cost the UK billions and destroyed the Conservative Party's reputation for economic competence for years to come.
Posted by: Mark Shadow | December 30, 2006 at 14:16
Mark Shadow
Don't remind me otherwise I'll have nightmares again.
But it is still nice to hear someone stand up to the sanctimony of the hair shirt wearing brigade who if they did not have climate change to moan about would soon find something else.
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 14:23
Dizzy raises an interesting point: why on earth did the Editor feel the need to doctor the original image to cover Ms Hazell's nipples?
Of course, this is a site devoted to politics and gratuitous displays of naked flesh would be strange and inappropriate but, in this case, the photo is part of the story.
The Editor gives his reason as "This is a family website" which is clearly untrue. Children do NOT read CH. Perhaps 'family' is being used as a euphemism for 'Christian' or 'prudish'.
For a bloke of Tim's age to be acting like Mary Whitehouse ("We want none of that muck here") is actually a bit worrying. Even the Daily Mail now shows nipples in context.
What can we expect next in the field of oddball Victorian awkwardness? Piano legs to be covered with lace covers, perhaps...
Posted by: Ayatollah Modesty | December 30, 2006 at 14:34
Would you prefer tassles?
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 14:47
Good point Ayatollah, nipples are clearly inextricable from environmental debate - I can't believe that the Editor deemed them to be irrelevant to "the context" and has deprived you of titillation.
Posted by: Deputy Editor | December 30, 2006 at 14:50
Ayatollah Modesty, it is Tim's blog and can censor as he wishes. If he hadn't censorred the image CH's possition in search engines like Google may have been damaged. Many use 'mild filter' and, uncensorred, this may have blocked CH.
Posted by: DavidTBreaker | December 30, 2006 at 14:53
"Would you prefer tassles?"
What about a T shirt with DD on it?
Posted by: Scotty | December 30, 2006 at 14:59
Let me take each of these in turn.
The Deputy Editor (deploying a mastery of withering sarcasm) says: "Good point Ayatollah, nipples are clearly inextricable from environmental debate - I can't believe that the Editor deemed them to be irrelevant to "the context" and has deprived you of titillation."
It wasn't CH that brought 'nipples' into the green debate - it was the Sun and, by choosing Keeley Hazell, the Conservative Party. By taking the time and trouble to photoshop Ms Hazell's nipples out of the picture (which, let's not forget, CH chose to reproduce) the Editor was displaying a certain prudishness that seems odd in a 21st century context.
As for Sam's lame jibe about depriving me of my titiliation, I assume a quick Google image search would provide me with all the titilation I could handle so we can safely disregard that as a motive for my complaint.
DavidTBreaker makes two points:
"Ayatollah Modesty, it is Tim's blog and can censor as he wishes."
Of course, I didn't question Tim's right to censor his blog. I questioned his judgement and motives in doing so. An entirely different thing.
Mr Breaker goes on to claim: "If he hadn't censorred the image CH's possition in search engines like Google may have been damaged. Many use 'mild filter' and, uncensorred, this may have blocked CH."
I'm afraid this has the flavour of a post-facto rationalisation. Tim made no reference to search engines when explaining his motives to Dizzy. Plus, crawler-based search engines, such as Google, create their listings automatically. Unless there is the repeated use of certain words, or links to tagged URLs, it would require human agency on the part of Google staff to reclassify CH. I can reassure you that would never happen on the basis of the (non) offending picture under discussion.
Which, of course, brings us right back to what the real motive was for the act of censorship. One assumes 'taste', 'modesty' and 'family' - in other words, a rather dated prudishness. Why not simply admit it and move on?
Posted by: Ayatollah Modesty | December 30, 2006 at 15:28
Perhaps the Editor prefers pictures of David Cameron to Keeley's nipples.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 30, 2006 at 15:33
I have never heard of Ms Keeley before but she is clearly attractive and would look the more so without the green in-fill and the added pictures. It is however entirely appropriate for the Editor to do as he sees fit. What is wrong with modesty? Whilst I am not sure that using photos of David Cameron to cover Ms Keeley's nipples and aureolae is entirley appropriate, it does have a funny side. Whatever next?
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 15:45
By taking the time and trouble to photoshop Ms Hazell's nipples out of the picture the Editor was displaying a certain prudishness that seems odd in a 21st century context.
It's not as if the picture had to be used at all, using David Cameron to protect Keeley's modesty was amusing :-)
I think many more eyebrows would have been raised by randomly putting up a picture of a topless Page3 girl, than in publishing a censored one. It is a "prudishness" that I think most people can understand - this is a serious website and its readers shouldn't have to be wary of what is going to be on it.
I'm afraid this has the flavour of a post-facto rationalisation. Tim made no reference to search engines when explaining his motives to Dizzy.
It's not as if Tim's short comment was a comprehensive justification crafted by lawyers. I don't understand why you're taking this so seriously.
I appreciate the light-heartedness on a lazy Saturday afternoon, but future comments not on the real topic are liable for deletion!
Posted by: Deputy Editor | December 30, 2006 at 15:55
Well said Deputy Editor.
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 15:59
Does Peter Ainsworth really believe Ms Hazell writes these things herself? If so, the man is too stupid to read The Sun, never mind be a Shadow Minister.
Posted by: Burkean | December 30, 2006 at 16:54
If I may briefly comment on the picture issue... the Dep Ed is quite right.
MPs don't want to be seen looking at topless ladies on their laptop in Portcullis House (I have seen MPs reading CH in such a way several times), otherwise they'd be happy 'reading' The Sun's Page 3! A tiresome attempt to revive the Tory Taliban tosh.
On topic - I don't think it is helpful for the party to be negative and talk about "zeroes" etc. Its environmental beliefs need to be projected in a positive way which convinces people with facts (if there are any) to act voluntarily to stop climate change.
Posted by: Anthony Broderick | December 30, 2006 at 17:01
Personally I think anyone who believes that there is not climate change and that we do not need to do something about it is this centurys eqvalient of those who thought the earth was flat!
Posted by: Jack Stone | December 30, 2006 at 17:06
Jack Stone is singularly right. There is such a thing as climate change. There always has been and for a variety of incompletely understood reasons. Whether any current change is due exclusively or otherwise to man is a matter for debate as is if man is the cause what can we realistically do about it.
One thing that stikes me as characteristic of the climate doomsters is that climate change seems about the only subject on which
they defer to scientific opinion. On any other topic and their attitudes seem medieval (if that is not being unfair to our early empirircists which it probably is).
Finally if man made climate change is the
problem and the flat earthers won't accept technology as the solution, why isn't population control ever posited as an answer?
Posted by: Esbonio | December 30, 2006 at 17:21
Climate is certainly changing, the debate - and there should be a debate - is about whether we can do anything about it.
Posted by: Anthony Broderick | December 30, 2006 at 18:45
oh dear.. I appear to have caused a little bit of stir with my off the cuff joke. Apologies Tim/Sam.
Posted by: dizzy | December 30, 2006 at 18:53
Not a good idea to hamper your own economy if the Chinese are building an extra coal-fired power station every 5 days (also pointless).
Posted by: ukfirst | December 30, 2006 at 19:22
Another bad idea from CCHQ.The climate change debate is clearly an emotive subject and it should never be 'dumbed down'.I would have thought that sensible Conservative policy would be to put the latest scientific findings into the public arena and invite the public to come to their own conclusions. This idea and the huskies trip and the cycling to Parliament show us at our trivial worst.Surely as a party we can do so much better.
Having said that I also sometimes feel that this site is at its worst when discussing enviromental issues.It does seem to me that the huge body of scientific opinion that believes that climate change is man made and reversible should be taken much more seriously than this site and many of the commentators here currently do.
Posted by: malcolm | December 30, 2006 at 20:57
Dizz, I wouldn't call one numb-skull rattling his cage a stir. Must try harder. ;-)
Posted by: Praguetory | December 30, 2006 at 21:03
"Not a good idea to hamper your own economy if the Chinese are building an extra coal-fired power station every 5 days (also pointless)."
All the more reason to change our habits, a short term attempt to keep up with the chinese economy will just cause us more harm in the future.
I also think that the mood is changing in America and we will see more American politicians following David Cameron's lead on green issues.
To dismiss the importance of climate change and the fact that it is resonating with the electorate would be a political mistake.
David Cameron is trying to set his own agenda and lead the debate, that is refreshing after years in the political wilderness constantly trying to play 2nd fiddle to the NuLabour project.
Posted by: Scotty | December 30, 2006 at 21:06
I have never denied the possibility of climate change Malcolm (20:57) although much of it may be natural rather than man made. My concerns have always been...
(1) the impossibility of combatting it (certainly without unlikely co-action with China, India and US) and the economic welfare cost with their cooperation;
(2) there are other more pressing priorities for our political and economic wherewithal;
(3) we might be better - as Lord Lawson has argued - to adapt rather than combat.
***
As for the Ayatollah I think my attempt at an amusing kind of censorship has pobviously passed you by!
Posted by: Editor | December 30, 2006 at 21:24
The simple truth is we need to stop wasting the Earth's resources - they're running out fast for one reason.
That would be a more sensible focus than "climate change"/ CO2 emissions per se. Cutting out waste and improving energy technology could amount to the much same thing as "tackling global warming" but without the bureaucracy (such as that needed to manage "emissions trading") and arbitrary damage to our economy. Cutting out waste and developing better technology would be a certain winner and would be achievable with simple tax/price mechanisms.
That said, we are of course governed now in these matters by the EU.
Posted by: ukfirst | December 30, 2006 at 22:33
Why doesn't Cameron get really convincing on "green" issues and announce his wife will NOT use disposable nappies for any baby but prefers to use terry-towelling and wash them.
I am sure the saving on landfill pollution would be much appreciated - I am surprised the Tories do not announce a ban on such nappies on environmental grounds
Posted by: TomTOm | December 31, 2006 at 07:49
Looks as though you got a few people a little too but 'excited' by posting that picture, Tim.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | December 31, 2006 at 12:05
TomTom your suggestion at 7.49am about disposable nappies may be a very good idea per se, But I am sure you must know exactly what sort of a reaction it would get both in the press and even from trolls on this site!! 'Its alright for those privileged wives of Etonians, to use non-disposable nappies, THEY have nannies or 'helpers' to do all the washing, AND they don't have to worry about the fuel bills for increased hot water useage'. TomTom you can surely see just such a reaction, the whingers would hardly miss an opportunity like that??
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 31, 2006 at 14:25
"The simple truth is we need to stop wasting the Earth's resources - they're running out fast for one reason." - ukfirst
Which resources are running out? This mantra has been quoted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And yet we have not run out of anything.
Posted by: Kit | December 31, 2006 at 15:39
Re TomTom and disposable nappies, there was a report (sorry no attribution) which suggested painful terry nappies were not so enviromentally friendly versus disposable ones as many claim. Hard to be believe though.
As for Patsy's leading comment, it beats me why she feels she feels has to stick up for the privileged as they appear to do a pretty good job themselves.
Posted by: Esbonio | December 31, 2006 at 17:36
PS
My wife has just informed me that disposable nappies are a major land fill problem and that
the new style terry nappies are much better than the ones we had in he old days.
Posted by: Esbonio | December 31, 2006 at 17:41
I know your views Tim but don't you think it would be sensible to give some credence to the wealth of scientific information from some of the worlds most eminent scientists that profoundly disagrees with you?
Anyway it's New Years Eve,not the right time for an argument,so a very happy new year to you.
Posted by: malcolm | December 31, 2006 at 17:55
You confuse scence and policy-making Malcolm. My arguments do not rely on the climate change 'consensus' among scientists being wrong.
The Copenhagen Consensus has shown when economists and policymakers evaluate the costs and benefits of acting on climate change or other priorities they choose the other priorities.
But as you say - it's New Year's Eve. Happy 2007 to you!
Posted by: Editor | December 31, 2006 at 18:06
Esbonio @ 17.36 - You've got the wrong end of the stick entirely, I don''t give a toss what so-called 'privileged people' put on their baby's bottoms, or what anybody uses, BUT I do care about handing amunition to the many dreary people who like nothing better than trying to demolish and Conservative MP or would-be MP. Got it!!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 31, 2006 at 20:00
Anyway ---- HAPPY NEW YEAR to all CH posters and best of luck for next year!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 31, 2006 at 20:02
Happy New Year to all
- a surprisingly warm and comfortable New Year in Wiltshire at least (no there can't be anything in that global warming can there? must just be a normal climate variable)
But if it isn't.....
Posted by: Ted | January 01, 2007 at 01:43
Star Trek had green women 40 years ago. That was when all the scaremongering was about the next ice age that would force us all to migrate south. I think we can safely assume that Miss Hazell is about as qualified on climate science as Blair or Cameron.
Posted by: Chris | April 16, 2007 at 08:01
Despite Pravda's ascertation to the contrary the debate is not over. There are a great many emminent scientists who do not accept the linkage of marginal climate change with CO2 emissions.
The greens do not serve themselves any favours by maniplulating statistics and engaging in threatening tactics against those who disagree with them. They make themselves look more like a cult than a genuine scientific debator.
Posted by: Rebecca B | June 27, 2007 at 10:20
Global warming? It's the Sun wit does it!
Posted by: Paul Screeton | April 07, 2008 at 10:56
Global warming? Should have been:
It's the sun wot does it!
Posted by: Paul Screeton | March 07, 2009 at 19:58
Quite a delayed correction Paul!!
:-)
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | March 07, 2009 at 20:38